4 ms·

You base this off what? We really live in a post truth society where innocent asks for evidence supporting a claim are discouraged. I am not saying it stolen,

You base this off what? We really live in a post truth society where innocent asks for evidence supporting a claim are discouraged. I am not saying it stolen, merely asking if there is any proof it was bought. And no, “oCcAms rAZOr” is not evidence.

vmg12 16d ago
my reason for believing they were paid is that the band has not been making a stink about it
lazyasciiart 16d ago
Knowing that people are willing to exchange social handles for money.
- edoceo 16d ago
  Many times that's against the TOS? And the names/handles belong to the site not the user anyway. I've seen these deals happen too.
  - deleted 16d ago
    [deleted]
csallen 16d ago
This comment and others like it are wild to me. Since when was the default to assume malicious activity and victimization, and then to ask for proof otherwise? Obviously we should do the reverse. There should be evidence of theft rather than assuming theft as the baseline. For starters, if the band's handles were taken non-consensually, then the least we should expect is a public complaint from said band. This is doubly true in a world where social media handles are routinely bought, sold, and traded. And triply true where the supposed victim of this crime is an incredibly popular group of people with an extremely massive platform, and it's 99.9999% likely that Meta knew this going in.
- lrvick 16d ago
  When a company is known for being malicious by default, to the point of knowingly covering up their ongoing and extensive contributions to teen suicides, it is not unreasonable for people to expect they would steal social media accounts to suit their interests. They are pure unadulterated evil. They are guilty until proven innocent at this point.
  - csallen 16d ago
    I disagree, this is an unreasonable and almost certainly incorrect thing to assume happened in this case. The fact that one hates XYZ is not a good reason to turn one's brain off and lose the ability to think rationally about XYZ. In fact, I would argue that there's never a good reason to turn one's brain off and lose the ability to think even moderately intelligently.
    - lrvick 16d ago
      I am agreeing it is unlikely it was actually malicious, but it is Meta and they deserve no charity. If it is even a small possibility they did the evil thing, we should all operate on the assumption they did the evil thing anyway until proven innocent. I hope all the non charitable assumptions they deserve snowball enough to hurt them. May their stock price burn in hell.
      - csallen 16d ago
        I really really really really REALLY don't like this way of thinking, and I hope that fewer and fewer people adopt it.
  - snapetom 16d ago
    Good lord. Please use logic and Occam's Razor this. Muse is a platinum album winning band that's got 10 albums over 20 years. If this was stolen, they (and their label) would be raising hell.
  - thesmtsolver2 16d ago
Waterluvian 16d ago
Probably nothing. But Meta throwing a boatload of money at Muse is probably cheaper and easier than being evil about it. The problem is, it’s Meta. And like the scorpion said to the frog, “I can’t help it. It’s my nature.”
bradly 16d ago
This is from an app the was also named Muse: > An opportunity came up regarding the Muse name and trademarks. These have now been sold, so I need to move the app to a new name. Nothing else about the company, the app, your account, or your data has changed. From https://allume.com/allume-faq/ https://allume.com/allume-faq/
sippingabonedry 16d ago
Well in a decent society you can't take things that aren't yours. Nobody using Muse the tool knows or gives a fuck who Muse the band is, the band itself is twice their age. At 32 years a band is reaching Spinal Tap stage and they could probably use the cash. Occam's razor and all that.
- csallen 16d ago
  > Nobody using Muse the tool knows or gives a fuck who Muse the band is, the band itself is twice their age. Muse is incredibly popular. They're in the middle of a tour right now, too. Just saw them live two weekends ago. I'm sure there are tons of people who both listen to Muse and will use Muse the AI tool. I'm sure that's true for many of the AI tool's creators, too.
- nzeid 16d ago
  Talk about sour grapes. Muse remains ridiculously popular and I will bet my bank account that there are more Muse fans than slop enthusiasts.
  - mattgreenrocks 16d ago
    The irony of a highly talented band that have been actually doing the work for over twenty years being pushed aside to make room for Meta's model that promises you won't have to actually do the work.
- nosioptar 16d ago
  I listened to the Beatles growing up, despite them being much more thab twice my age. I have younger relatives that love Muse (and Spinal Tap). Before today, I'd never heard of the muse app that chanhed it's name.
  - sippingabonedry 16d ago
    Then you would know about the trademark beef the Beatles had with Apple for years.
  - 16d ago
rconti 16d ago
The fact that the band changed their handles months ago and haven't complained? Occam's razor, man.

vmg12 16d ago

my reason for believing they were paid is that the band has not been making a stink about it

lazyasciiart 16d ago

Knowing that people are willing to exchange social handles for money.

edoceo 16d ago
Many times that's against the TOS? And the names/handles belong to the site not the user anyway. I've seen these deals happen too.
- deleted 16d ago
  [deleted]

csallen 16d ago

This comment and others like it are wild to me. Since when was the default to assume malicious activity and victimization, and then to ask for proof otherwise? Obviously we should do the reverse. There should be evidence of theft rather than assuming theft as the baseline. For starters, if the band's handles were taken non-consensually, then the least we should expect is a public complaint from said band. This is doubly true in a world where social media handles are routinely bought, sold, and traded. And triply true where the supposed victim of this crime is an incredibly popular group of people with an extremely massive platform, and it's 99.9999% likely that Meta knew this going in.

lrvick 16d ago
When a company is known for being malicious by default, to the point of knowingly covering up their ongoing and extensive contributions to teen suicides, it is not unreasonable for people to expect they would steal social media accounts to suit their interests. They are pure unadulterated evil. They are guilty until proven innocent at this point.
- csallen 16d ago
  I disagree, this is an unreasonable and almost certainly incorrect thing to assume happened in this case. The fact that one hates XYZ is not a good reason to turn one's brain off and lose the ability to think rationally about XYZ. In fact, I would argue that there's never a good reason to turn one's brain off and lose the ability to think even moderately intelligently.
  - lrvick 16d ago
    I am agreeing it is unlikely it was actually malicious, but it is Meta and they deserve no charity. If it is even a small possibility they did the evil thing, we should all operate on the assumption they did the evil thing anyway until proven innocent. I hope all the non charitable assumptions they deserve snowball enough to hurt them. May their stock price burn in hell.
    - csallen 16d ago
      I really really really really REALLY don't like this way of thinking, and I hope that fewer and fewer people adopt it.
- snapetom 16d ago
  Good lord. Please use logic and Occam's Razor this. Muse is a platinum album winning band that's got 10 albums over 20 years. If this was stolen, they (and their label) would be raising hell.
- thesmtsolver2 16d ago

Waterluvian 16d ago

Probably nothing. But Meta throwing a boatload of money at Muse is probably cheaper and easier than being evil about it. The problem is, it’s Meta. And like the scorpion said to the frog, “I can’t help it. It’s my nature.”

bradly 16d ago

This is from an app the was also named Muse: > An opportunity came up regarding the Muse name and trademarks. These have now been sold, so I need to move the app to a new name. Nothing else about the company, the app, your account, or your data has changed. From https://allume.com/allume-faq/ https://allume.com/allume-faq/

sippingabonedry 16d ago

Well in a decent society you can't take things that aren't yours. Nobody using Muse the tool knows or gives a fuck who Muse the band is, the band itself is twice their age. At 32 years a band is reaching Spinal Tap stage and they could probably use the cash. Occam's razor and all that.

csallen 16d ago
> Nobody using Muse the tool knows or gives a fuck who Muse the band is, the band itself is twice their age. Muse is incredibly popular. They're in the middle of a tour right now, too. Just saw them live two weekends ago. I'm sure there are tons of people who both listen to Muse and will use Muse the AI tool. I'm sure that's true for many of the AI tool's creators, too.
nzeid 16d ago
Talk about sour grapes. Muse remains ridiculously popular and I will bet my bank account that there are more Muse fans than slop enthusiasts.
- mattgreenrocks 16d ago
  The irony of a highly talented band that have been actually doing the work for over twenty years being pushed aside to make room for Meta's model that promises you won't have to actually do the work.
nosioptar 16d ago
I listened to the Beatles growing up, despite them being much more thab twice my age. I have younger relatives that love Muse (and Spinal Tap). Before today, I'd never heard of the muse app that chanhed it's name.
- sippingabonedry 16d ago
  Then you would know about the trademark beef the Beatles had with Apple for years.
- 16d ago

rconti 16d ago

The fact that the band changed their handles months ago and haven't complained? Occam's razor, man.